Members of Congress are reportedly beginning impeachment against Barack
Obama based on the grounds of unauthorized military use in Libya and
Syria. Congress is also looking at his involvement in Fast and Furious.

According to Congressional representatives Barack Obama has violated
the rules set that clearly state that the President must seek
Congressional approval before using military force. Now he says it was
OK because he had international support. But how does that make it okay?
They aren’t our Congress. They don’t determine what is right or wrong
for us. Sources close to aides
in Congress say the law clearly states “any use of military force by
Obama without explicit consent and authorization of Congress constitutes
an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, Section 4
of the Constitution.”

The Republicans want to know how President Obama was able to use military force in Libya last year.

Republicans are pushing a resolution through Congress, which has been
highly underreported by mainstream media, to look into further actions
to be taken upon the President. Since it explicitly states in the
Constitution that the President must ask permission from Congress to use
military forces in another country, sources say there is clear cause
for impeachment.

While an impeachment can be a strain on our
country and may not be necessary in an election year – Republicans are
still moving ahead with it.

“The days of Czars and Executive
orders in order to sidestep Congress should end and if it takes an
impeachment to do that it is something I and many other Americans would
support,” said a prominent Republican Congressman.

“We have a
President who believes our Constitution is just a ‘historical document’
that is not fit to determine how our country is ran anymore,” said the
Congressman.

Democrats, obviously, are opposing the impeachment
effort by sources close to Republican leaders say that they are “moving
full speed ahead” because “we need something to keep us busy until the
election.”

Just last year Congress debated a similar proposal when the House argued about authorizing action in Libya or cutting off funding, The Nation reported. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, argued a president cannot unilaterally commit U.S. military forces and use assets previously appropriated by Congress to pursue an undeclared war. That went the same path as every other attempt at enforcing the War Powers Act has over the past 40 years.

COMMENTARY | A North Carolina congressman warned President Barack Obama that any military intervention in Syria without congressional approval might result in impeachment proceedings. I doubt the bill will advance beyond the House, but at least the president has been warned.

Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced a bill in the House on Monday that would require congressional approval of any military action in Syria. Failure to obtain that permission would be an impeachable offense under Jones' bill, The Daily Caller reported. Whether it's election year politicking or a genuine attempt to preserve the congressional war prerogative is anyone's guess.

Obama isn't much different than other presidents. He has widely interpreted his role of commander-in-chief to allow him to conduct military engagements without congressional approval so long as he avoids an all-out war. All of Obama's immediate predecessors were equally guilty of doing exactly the same thing.

The Founding Fathers didn't intend for the chief executive to conduct undeclared wars, that is why they specifically gave Congress the right to declare war and fund the armed forces. But in a modern world, not every conflict is a war. Some are military engagements to avoid an all-out war. And let's be honest, presidents kn...

COMMENTARY | A North Carolina congressman warned President Barack Obama that any military intervention in Syria without congressional approval might result in impeachment proceedings. I doubt the bill will advance beyond the House, but at least the president has been warned.

Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced a bill in the House on Monday that would require congressional approval of any military action in Syria. Failure to obtain that permission would be an impeachable offense under Jones' bill, The Daily Caller reported. Whether it's election year politicking or a genuine attempt to preserve the congressional war prerogative is anyone's guess.

Obama isn't much different than other presidents. He has widely interpreted his role of commander-in-chief to allow him to conduct military engagements without congressional approval so long as he avoids an all-out war. All of Obama's immediate predecessors were equally guilty of doing exactly the same thing.

The Founding Fathers didn't intend for the chief executive to conduct undeclared wars, that is why they specifically gave Congress the right to declare war and fund the armed forces. But in a modern world, not every conflict is a war. Some are military engagements to avoid an all-out war. And let's be honest, presidents know how to press Congress into a corner when it comes to funding the military. Any congressman foolish enough to deny fighting men and women the equipment they need would be run out of office by the voters.

Smoke and mirrors. The only reason they might actually do this is to try and draw attention away from the fact that the House is as unpopular as it ever has been. The GOP is uncomfortable having to actually work with a democrat president, so they want to try this.

If they really push forth with it, it will prove that the only thing the republican party is really good at is attacking the democratic party. It has no useful agenda except hate.

Don't be silly. You are posting something saying Obama is good -- on SodaHead? Don't you know that angry, reactionary conservatives hang out here?

I once posted something saying simply that Obama did not have an agenda to destroy the United States, that he wasn't an atheist muslim. For that I got dozens of angry posts... and your post is much more positive towards the hated man that mine was. Good luck with all the hate...

For many things. THe outing of a cia worker, torture, lieing us into war. The misplaced money in Iraq, his staying on vacation while American's were dieing in Katrina. The stolen elections. Yeap, you bet ya.

Obamaphones are a distateful use of tax dollars to buy votes for Odumba. No, I don't care for that. I am just saying that this is a waste fo friggin time. It will come to nothing, as long as the Dems hold the senate.

I think it's funny that Harry normally walks lock-step with the Administration because he knows the LV Unions will back the "party" and protect him, EXCEPT when it comes to the union members' guns when the members WILL buck the union leadership!

This is actually a good thing, it will show The majority of Americans who republicans really are and how to vote come mid terms. It will hopefully set a precedent so that in the future democrats impeach a republican president like they should have with Bush.